MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4297762611 · doi:10.1016/j.sexol.2022.07.003

Utilisation problématique de pornographie en ligne chez les hommes et les femmes : facteurs discriminants et prédictifs

2022· article· fr· W4297762611 on OpenAlexaff
Claudia Leblanc, Dominique Trottier

Bibliographic record

VenueSexologies · 2022
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldPsychology
TopicSexuality, Behavior, and Technology
Canadian institutionsInstitut national de psychiatrie légale Philippe-PinelUniversité du Québec en Outaouais
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPolitical scienceArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cette recherche a pour but l’étude des facteurs individuels liés à l’utilisation problématique de pornographie en ligne (UPPL) sur un échantillon d’hommes et de femmes. Spécifiquement, il s’agira (1) de déterminer si la fréquence de consommation, les motifs de consommation ou l’historique sexuel permettent de discriminer les hommes et les femmes présentant une UPPL des hommes et des femmes sans UPPL, et (2) de vérifier si ces mêmes variables permettent de prédire l’UPPL chez les hommes et les femmes. Au total, 614 utilisateurs et utilisatrices de pornographie en ligne âgés de 16 à 69 ans ont complété un questionnaire en ligne sur leur historique sexuel ainsi que les versions françaises du Short Internet Sex Addiction Test, du Pornography Consumption Inventory et du Sexual Experiences Survey-Perpetration – Tactics first. Les résultats suggèrent que (1) les hommes présentant une UPPL ont des scores significativement plus élevés que les utilisateurs sans UPPL au niveau de la fréquence d’utilisation, des trois motifs de consommations (évitement émotionnel, curiosité sexuelle et plaisir sexuel) et des antécédents de coercition sexuelle ; (2) les femmes présentant une UPPL ont obtenu des scores plus élevés que les utilisatrices sans UPPL sur ces mêmes variables ; (3) lorsque les hommes et les femmes présentant une UPPL ont été comparés entre eux, aucune différence significative n’a été décelée, à l’exception de la fréquence de consommation des hommes qui était significativement plus élevée que celle des femmes; et (4) que les variables à l’étude permettent d’expliquer 39,8 % de l’UPPL chez les hommes et 31,7 % chez les femmes. Ces résultats suggèrent que les motifs d’utilisation ainsi que les antécédents de coercition sexuelle présentent à la fois une capacité discriminante et prédictive de l’UPPL chez les femmes et les hommes. The purpose of this research was to study individual factors associated with problematic online pornography use on a sample of men and women. Specifically, we aim to (1) determine whether frequency of use, motives for use, or sexual history discriminate users with problematic online pornography use, and (3) investigate whether these variables predict problematic online pornography use in men and women. A total of 614 online pornography users aged 16 to 69 completed an online questionnaire about their sexual history and the French versions of the Short Internet sex Addiction Test, the Pornography Consumption Inventory, and the Sexual Experiences Survey-Perpetration form – Tactics first. Results suggest that (1) men with problematic online pornography use scored significantly higher than other men on frequency of use, all three motives for use (emotional avoidance, sexual curiosity and sexual pleasure) and a history of sexual coercion; (2) women with problematic online pornography use obtained higher scores than other females on these same variables; (3) when men and women problematic online pornography use were compared with each other, no significant difference was detected, except frequency of use which was significantly higher for men; and (4) the studied variables explain 39.8 % of problematic online pornography use in men and 31.7 % in women. These results suggest that frequency of use, motives for use and a history of sexual coercion.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.092
GPT teacher head0.376
Teacher spread0.284 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSexologiesSame topicSexuality, Behavior, and TechnologyFrench-language works237,207